User:Skigoat/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
Sources and ReferencesA Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. |
Which article are you evaluating?[edit]
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?[edit]
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)
I have chosen to evaluate this article because I found it in the Wiki stub-category, which tells me that it's an article that needs quite a lot of help. I also chose it because I believe it is important to properly and thoroughly examine any term used to define women. Doing this matters because it determines how society values (or devalues) women, in what contexts, and for which purpose or gain. It is also important to do in order to deem whether this evaluation of women is rooted in the past or an ongoing perspective.
My preliminary impression of this article was that it summed up what a "Superwoman" means in a brief, neutral manner. However, the article was extremely short and did not -- beyond the definition of "Superwoman" -- carry forward much information about the subject.
Evaluate the article[edit]
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)
As mentioned above, the lead section summarizes the definition of a "Superwoman" in a brief and neutral manner. However, the lead does not include the sections that follow in the article (probably because there is only one). The lead also lists a song and books that use the term "Superwoman," which should perhaps be featured in their own section instead of in the lead.
The article's content is relevant to the topic, but does not specify whether this is still a topical term. The article states the term's initial history but does not explore its relevance past that point or even its impacts or much of the response from society at the time. Therefore, the content is not up to date and there is lots of valuable information missing. The article is focused on women, particularly how they are perceived and defined as "Superwomen," and does somewhat (I will focus on making the article better in this way) explore how this term creates an equity gap.
As for the article's sources, they are mostly good secondary sources apart from one being from a local newspaper from Florida. (Wikipedia tutorials stated that newspapers as secondary sources should be at the national or international level.) Considering there are only five sources listed in the article, it is evident that the references are not thorough with what is being presented on the subject today. Furthermore, they are outdated. There is one somewhat recent source from 2008, however the others are all from the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. There are definitely more appropriate sources available that need to be inserted above some of these sources that are outdated, inappropriately used as secondary sources, and not diverse.
The article is concise, clear, pretty well-written and does not have grammatical errors. However, it needs to be broken into sections (hard to do since there is so little content) and reorganized (as I mentioned about the song and book references being included in the lead).
The article does not include any images or other forms of media, so that would be a useful way to uplift the article from the point it's at now and make it more engaging.
In the article's talk page, there is discussion about deleting "Superwoman syndrome" as a relation to "Triple X Syndrome," which they refer to as a medical disorder rather than a sociological term. There is also mentions of lots of changes done to past descriptions of this article and that they have improved, but require expansion from modern and appropriate references.
The overall status of the article is start-class and stub. Its strengths are that the information it does have is neutral and quite strong, however it needs more in order for readers to grasp any impact, relevance, and history of the term "Superwoman" beyond the initial context. It can be improved through mostly expansion, but also some reorganization as well and specific sections. Overall, I believe this article to be underdeveloped.